Cargando…

Is Nonoperative Treatment Appropriate for All Patients With Type 1 Tibial Spine Fractures? A Multicenter Study of the Tibial Spine Research Interest Group

BACKGROUND: Type 1 tibial spine fractures are nondisplaced or ≤2 mm–displaced fractures of the tibial eminence and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) insertion that are traditionally managed nonoperatively with immobilization. HYPOTHESIS: Type 1 fractures do not carry a significant risk of associated...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shimberg, Jilan L., Leska, Tomasina M., Cruz, Aristides I., Ellis, Henry B., Patel, Neeraj M., Yen, Yi-Meng, Schmale, Gregory A., Mistovich, R. Justin, Fabricant, Peter D., Ganley, Theodore J., Green, Daniel W., Johnson, Benjamin, Kushare, Indranil, Lee, R. Jay, McKay, Scott D., Milbrandt, Todd A., Rhodes, Jason, Sachleben, Brant, Traver, Jessica L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9168882/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35677019
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671221099572
_version_ 1784721095838924800
author Shimberg, Jilan L.
Leska, Tomasina M.
Cruz, Aristides I.
Ellis, Henry B.
Patel, Neeraj M.
Yen, Yi-Meng
Schmale, Gregory A.
Mistovich, R. Justin
Fabricant, Peter D.
Ganley, Theodore J.
Green, Daniel W.
Johnson, Benjamin
Kushare, Indranil
Lee, R. Jay
McKay, Scott D.
Milbrandt, Todd A.
Rhodes, Jason
Sachleben, Brant
Traver, Jessica L.
author_facet Shimberg, Jilan L.
Leska, Tomasina M.
Cruz, Aristides I.
Ellis, Henry B.
Patel, Neeraj M.
Yen, Yi-Meng
Schmale, Gregory A.
Mistovich, R. Justin
Fabricant, Peter D.
Ganley, Theodore J.
Green, Daniel W.
Johnson, Benjamin
Kushare, Indranil
Lee, R. Jay
McKay, Scott D.
Milbrandt, Todd A.
Rhodes, Jason
Sachleben, Brant
Traver, Jessica L.
author_sort Shimberg, Jilan L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Type 1 tibial spine fractures are nondisplaced or ≤2 mm–displaced fractures of the tibial eminence and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) insertion that are traditionally managed nonoperatively with immobilization. HYPOTHESIS: Type 1 fractures do not carry a significant risk of associated injuries and therefore do not require advanced imaging or additional interventions aside from immobilization. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: We reviewed 52 patients who were classified by their treating institution with type 1 tibial spine fractures. Patients aged ≤18 years with pretreatment plain radiographs and ≤ 1 year of follow-up were included. Pretreatment imaging was reviewed by 4 authors to assess classification agreement among the treating institutions. Patients were categorized into 2 groups to ensure that outcomes represented classic type 1 fracture patterns. Any patient with universal agreement among the 4 authors that the fracture did not appear consistent with a type 1 classification were assigned to the type 1+ (T1+) group; all other patients were assigned to the true type 1 (TT1) group. We evaluated the rates of pretreatment imaging, concomitant injuries, and need for operative interventions as well as treatment outcomes overall and for each group independently. RESULTS: A total of 48 patients met inclusion criteria; 40 were in the TT1 group, while 8 were in the T1+ group, indicating less than universal agreement in the classification of these fractures. Overall, 12 (25%) underwent surgical treatment, and 12 (25%) had concomitant injuries. Also, 8 patients required additional surgical management including ACL reconstruction (n = 4), lateral meniscal repair (n = 2), lateral meniscectomy (n = 1), freeing an incarcerated medial meniscus (n = 1), and medial meniscectomy (n = 1). CONCLUSION: The classification of type 1 fractures can be challenging. Contrary to prior thought, a substantial number of patients with these fractures (>20%) were found to have concomitant injuries. Overall, surgical management was performed in 25% of patients in our cohort.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9168882
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91688822022-06-07 Is Nonoperative Treatment Appropriate for All Patients With Type 1 Tibial Spine Fractures? A Multicenter Study of the Tibial Spine Research Interest Group Shimberg, Jilan L. Leska, Tomasina M. Cruz, Aristides I. Ellis, Henry B. Patel, Neeraj M. Yen, Yi-Meng Schmale, Gregory A. Mistovich, R. Justin Fabricant, Peter D. Ganley, Theodore J. Green, Daniel W. Johnson, Benjamin Kushare, Indranil Lee, R. Jay McKay, Scott D. Milbrandt, Todd A. Rhodes, Jason Sachleben, Brant Traver, Jessica L. Orthop J Sports Med Article BACKGROUND: Type 1 tibial spine fractures are nondisplaced or ≤2 mm–displaced fractures of the tibial eminence and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) insertion that are traditionally managed nonoperatively with immobilization. HYPOTHESIS: Type 1 fractures do not carry a significant risk of associated injuries and therefore do not require advanced imaging or additional interventions aside from immobilization. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: We reviewed 52 patients who were classified by their treating institution with type 1 tibial spine fractures. Patients aged ≤18 years with pretreatment plain radiographs and ≤ 1 year of follow-up were included. Pretreatment imaging was reviewed by 4 authors to assess classification agreement among the treating institutions. Patients were categorized into 2 groups to ensure that outcomes represented classic type 1 fracture patterns. Any patient with universal agreement among the 4 authors that the fracture did not appear consistent with a type 1 classification were assigned to the type 1+ (T1+) group; all other patients were assigned to the true type 1 (TT1) group. We evaluated the rates of pretreatment imaging, concomitant injuries, and need for operative interventions as well as treatment outcomes overall and for each group independently. RESULTS: A total of 48 patients met inclusion criteria; 40 were in the TT1 group, while 8 were in the T1+ group, indicating less than universal agreement in the classification of these fractures. Overall, 12 (25%) underwent surgical treatment, and 12 (25%) had concomitant injuries. Also, 8 patients required additional surgical management including ACL reconstruction (n = 4), lateral meniscal repair (n = 2), lateral meniscectomy (n = 1), freeing an incarcerated medial meniscus (n = 1), and medial meniscectomy (n = 1). CONCLUSION: The classification of type 1 fractures can be challenging. Contrary to prior thought, a substantial number of patients with these fractures (>20%) were found to have concomitant injuries. Overall, surgical management was performed in 25% of patients in our cohort. SAGE Publications 2022-06-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9168882/ /pubmed/35677019 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671221099572 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Article
Shimberg, Jilan L.
Leska, Tomasina M.
Cruz, Aristides I.
Ellis, Henry B.
Patel, Neeraj M.
Yen, Yi-Meng
Schmale, Gregory A.
Mistovich, R. Justin
Fabricant, Peter D.
Ganley, Theodore J.
Green, Daniel W.
Johnson, Benjamin
Kushare, Indranil
Lee, R. Jay
McKay, Scott D.
Milbrandt, Todd A.
Rhodes, Jason
Sachleben, Brant
Traver, Jessica L.
Is Nonoperative Treatment Appropriate for All Patients With Type 1 Tibial Spine Fractures? A Multicenter Study of the Tibial Spine Research Interest Group
title Is Nonoperative Treatment Appropriate for All Patients With Type 1 Tibial Spine Fractures? A Multicenter Study of the Tibial Spine Research Interest Group
title_full Is Nonoperative Treatment Appropriate for All Patients With Type 1 Tibial Spine Fractures? A Multicenter Study of the Tibial Spine Research Interest Group
title_fullStr Is Nonoperative Treatment Appropriate for All Patients With Type 1 Tibial Spine Fractures? A Multicenter Study of the Tibial Spine Research Interest Group
title_full_unstemmed Is Nonoperative Treatment Appropriate for All Patients With Type 1 Tibial Spine Fractures? A Multicenter Study of the Tibial Spine Research Interest Group
title_short Is Nonoperative Treatment Appropriate for All Patients With Type 1 Tibial Spine Fractures? A Multicenter Study of the Tibial Spine Research Interest Group
title_sort is nonoperative treatment appropriate for all patients with type 1 tibial spine fractures? a multicenter study of the tibial spine research interest group
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9168882/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35677019
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671221099572
work_keys_str_mv AT shimbergjilanl isnonoperativetreatmentappropriateforallpatientswithtype1tibialspinefracturesamulticenterstudyofthetibialspineresearchinterestgroup
AT leskatomasinam isnonoperativetreatmentappropriateforallpatientswithtype1tibialspinefracturesamulticenterstudyofthetibialspineresearchinterestgroup
AT cruzaristidesi isnonoperativetreatmentappropriateforallpatientswithtype1tibialspinefracturesamulticenterstudyofthetibialspineresearchinterestgroup
AT ellishenryb isnonoperativetreatmentappropriateforallpatientswithtype1tibialspinefracturesamulticenterstudyofthetibialspineresearchinterestgroup
AT patelneerajm isnonoperativetreatmentappropriateforallpatientswithtype1tibialspinefracturesamulticenterstudyofthetibialspineresearchinterestgroup
AT yenyimeng isnonoperativetreatmentappropriateforallpatientswithtype1tibialspinefracturesamulticenterstudyofthetibialspineresearchinterestgroup
AT isnonoperativetreatmentappropriateforallpatientswithtype1tibialspinefracturesamulticenterstudyofthetibialspineresearchinterestgroup
AT schmalegregorya isnonoperativetreatmentappropriateforallpatientswithtype1tibialspinefracturesamulticenterstudyofthetibialspineresearchinterestgroup
AT mistovichrjustin isnonoperativetreatmentappropriateforallpatientswithtype1tibialspinefracturesamulticenterstudyofthetibialspineresearchinterestgroup
AT fabricantpeterd isnonoperativetreatmentappropriateforallpatientswithtype1tibialspinefracturesamulticenterstudyofthetibialspineresearchinterestgroup
AT ganleytheodorej isnonoperativetreatmentappropriateforallpatientswithtype1tibialspinefracturesamulticenterstudyofthetibialspineresearchinterestgroup
AT greendanielw isnonoperativetreatmentappropriateforallpatientswithtype1tibialspinefracturesamulticenterstudyofthetibialspineresearchinterestgroup
AT johnsonbenjamin isnonoperativetreatmentappropriateforallpatientswithtype1tibialspinefracturesamulticenterstudyofthetibialspineresearchinterestgroup
AT kushareindranil isnonoperativetreatmentappropriateforallpatientswithtype1tibialspinefracturesamulticenterstudyofthetibialspineresearchinterestgroup
AT leerjay isnonoperativetreatmentappropriateforallpatientswithtype1tibialspinefracturesamulticenterstudyofthetibialspineresearchinterestgroup
AT mckayscottd isnonoperativetreatmentappropriateforallpatientswithtype1tibialspinefracturesamulticenterstudyofthetibialspineresearchinterestgroup
AT milbrandttodda isnonoperativetreatmentappropriateforallpatientswithtype1tibialspinefracturesamulticenterstudyofthetibialspineresearchinterestgroup
AT rhodesjason isnonoperativetreatmentappropriateforallpatientswithtype1tibialspinefracturesamulticenterstudyofthetibialspineresearchinterestgroup
AT sachlebenbrant isnonoperativetreatmentappropriateforallpatientswithtype1tibialspinefracturesamulticenterstudyofthetibialspineresearchinterestgroup
AT traverjessical isnonoperativetreatmentappropriateforallpatientswithtype1tibialspinefracturesamulticenterstudyofthetibialspineresearchinterestgroup